Transcript Moral Philosophy

Moral Philosophy
Kantian Ethics
Deontological Ethics





Deontology comes from the Greek deontos, meaning
'duty'.
Deontological ethical theories are concerned with
examining the motivation for an act, not its consequences,
and upon that basis establishing whether it is a morally
right action.
Deontological ethicists take the view that moral principles
can be established a priori - that is, without experience.
They are independent of experience because they are
inherently right, irrespective of the outcome.
A deontologist will maintain that there exists an absolute
moral law or code which can be discerned without
reference to any hypothetical consequences, but which is
always and intrinsically right.
Tasks
1.
2.
An absolute moral principle is one that
is always right in any circumstances.
‘Killing is wrong’ might be considered
such a principle, or ‘Preserving life is
good’. Consider other principles that
may be considered inherently good
and therefore always right to follow.
Now consider the implications of
always following these principles.
Would it work out in practice?
Immanuel Kant



Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) espoused a
deontological approach to ethics, judging morality by
examining the nature of actions and the will of their
agents rather than the goals they achieved.
A primary reason for adopting this approach is that
we cannot control consequences because we cannot
control the future, however hard we try.
Although Kant was not unconcerned about the
outcome, since he effectively argued a form of the
golden rule 'Do to others what you would have them
do to you' (Matthew 7:12), he insisted that the moral
evaluation of actions could not take consequences
into consideration.
Immanuel Kant


Kant argued that the universe was essentially just
and that the law would be more satisfied (i.e., the
good rewarded and the bad punished) in a postmortem existence.
To this end, he claimed, the existence of God was a
necessary requirement for a just universe and for the
moral law to be balanced.
Kant and the Categorical Imperative




Kant attempted to discover the rational principle that would
stand as a categorical imperative underpinning all other
ethical judgements.
The imperative would have to be categorical rather than
hypothetical, since true morality should not depend on
individual likes and dislikes or on abilities, opportunities or
other external circumstances.
Kant maintained that 'it is impossible to conceive of
anything at all in the world, or even out of it, which can be
taken as good without qualification, except a good will'.
A good will could be cultivated by the use of reason and by
working to be rid of those tendencies that make rational
decision-making impossible.
Kant and the Categorical Imperative





Personal preferences lead to hypothetical imperatives, or
commands which have a reason behind them: 'If you want to
be well liked, be generous to others.’
This does not espouse generosity as a a priori principle, but
offers a reason why one should be generous.
Kant argued that while personal preferences and inclinations
were not necessarily wrong, they could not be trusted as a
reliable guide to what was morally right.
Essentially, Kant argued that if we act according to our duty
in any given circumstances, we will act rightly.
Duty supersedes personal inclinations and unworthy
motives.
Task
3.
Kant offered the example of the fair
shopkeeper. The shopkeeper may have
many good reasons to be fair to
customers, but they would all be
hypothetical imperatives. Suggest what
different reasons the shop keeper might
offer for being fair to customers, and
what Kant would say is the only right
reason for being fair.
The Formulae of Right Action
Kant outlined three further principles of right action:
 The formula of the law of nature demands that
human beings act in such a way that their actions
might become a universal law. This illustrates the
need for moral principles to be universal. If the
rule or maxim governing our actions cannot be
universal, then it is not morally acceptable, and if
you cannot will that everyone follows the same
rule, then it is not a moral rule.
The Formulae of Right Action


The formula of the end in itself emphasises respect for
persons, who, unlike things, are never merely of
instrumental value, but are of intrinsic value. This means
that although people may be useful, they should not be
considered to be a means to an end, but rather to be ends in
themselves. This makes way for deontology to
acknowledge human rights as inviolable.
The formula of the kingdom of ends lays down the
principle that every action should be undertaken as if the
individual were a 'law-making member of a kingdom of
ends'. This should ensure that every individual appreciates
how significant a part they have to play in establishing
moral guidelines and rules.
The Formula of the Kingdom of Ends:
An Example

Friedrich Hegel built on Kant’s
philosophy and claimed that the
formula of the kingdom of ends
indicates that all people must be held
accountable for their actions or else it
becomes a contradiction in thinking.

E.g., A prisoner has the right to be
punished for his/her crime. Not to punish a
criminal would imply that they were not
able to make a moral judgement regarding
his/her actions and, consequently, that
they were somehow less than fully human.
Right to Punishment
Maxims

Before examining contradictions, it
is important to clarify what Kant
means by a maxim.
Immanuel Kant
&
The Categorical Imperative
Universalizing
the Maxim
Act only on that maxim through which
you can at the same time will that it
should become a universal law.
Maxim = Rule of Behaviour
Act only on that maxim through
which you can at the same time will
that it should become a universal
law.
Act only on that maxim through which
you can at the same time will that it
should become a universal law.
What is a maxim?
• “the subjective principle of your
action.”
• a personal rule describing what
you are about to do.
• it may be good or bad
Act only on that maxim through which
you can at the same time will that it
should become a universal law.
I will pretend my car is
an emergency vehicle
to get other people to
stop or move out of the
way.
I will illegally copy
music from the
internet in order to get
it as cheaply as
possible.
Contradictions

There are two types of
contradiction to be aware of
when assessing the
universalisability of a maxim.

Contradiction in Thinking

Contradiction in Willing
How do I get everyone to conform?
 Universalizing the maxim is a
thought experiment.
 It is not about whether you can
actually get everyone to follow
the maxim.
Is it a problem?
Does my attempt to universalize the
maxim have implications for my
ability to will that it be universal?
Contradiction in Thinking
A contradiction in thinking occurs
when I cannot even imagine the
maxim universalized because the act
of making it universal undermines the
maxim.
 Does my attempt to universalize the
maxim have implications for my
ability to will that it be universal?

Contradiction in Willing


A contradiction in willing occurs
when I can imagine it as a universal
maxim but am not able to will that it
be so because it would result in a
situation I could not will to happen.
Does my attempt to universalize the
maxim have implications for my ability to
will that it be universal?
A contradiction in thinking.
I will pretend my car is
an emergency vehicle
to get other people to
stop or move out of the
way.
A contradiction in thinking.
I will illegally copy
music from the
internet in order to get
it as cheaply as
possible.
Kant and Contradiction Examples

A man finds himself a talent whose cultivation
would make him a useful man for all sorts of
purposes. But he sees himself in comfortable
circumstances, and he prefers to give himself
up to pleasure rather than to bother about
increasing and improving his fortunate natural
aptitudes. Yet he asks himself further ‘Does my
maxim of neglecting my natural gifts, besides
agreeing in itself with my tendency of
indulgence, agree also with what is called duty?’
What kind of contradiction would arise if the
man was to adopt this as his maxim?
Kant’s Response


The man would see that a system of nature
could indeed always subsist under such a
universal law, although every man should let
his talents rust and should be bent on
devoting his life solely to idleness,
indulgence, procreation, and, in a word, to
enjoyment.
Yet he cannot possibly will that this should
become a universal law of nature or should
be implanted in us as such a law by a natural
instinct. For as a rational being he
necessarily wills that all his powers should be
developed, since they serve him, and are
given him, for all sorts of possible ends.
Strengths of the Theory





Motivation is valued over consequences, which are beyond
our control. An immoral motive cannot be justified by
unforeseen good consequences, but a good motive is, in
itself, worthy of value.
It is a humanitarian in which all people are considered to be
of equal value and worthy of protection.
Justice is always an absolute, even if the majority does not
benefit.
It recognises the value of moral absolutes which do not
change with time or culture.
It provides objective guidelines for making moral decisions,
without the need for lengthy calculation of possible
outcomes.
Weaknesses of the Theory


There is more to the moral point of view than being willing
to universalise one's rules. Kant and his followers fail to see
this fact, although they are right in thinking such a
willingness is part of it. (William K Frankena, Ethics (Prentice Hall, 1973), p. 33.)
Moral obligations appear arbitrary or inexplicable except by
reference to duty. In reality our decision-making is
influenced by many more factors than these, and it is indeed
questionable whether duty is as good a motive as Kant
suggested.
If we are to act according to our duty, then how do we deal
with conflicting duties? W. D. Ross (1877-1971) argued that
we have prima facie duties which automatically override
others - duty to family and loved ones before strangers, for
example.
Weaknesses of the Theory




How far can a good will or motive mitigate a disastrous
outcome?
When taken to its logical extreme the principle of
universalisability is absurd. Not all things if universalised
would be moral: 'every person wearing black shoes should
tie the left lace first' could be universalised, but it does not
make it a moral command.
Anything could technically be universalised, hence the
principle is exposed to a reductio ad absurdum. 'All men
called Joe who are unemployed should rob a bank on
Tuesday' is in theory universalisable, but clearly fails Kant's
test in all other ways.
Are we all capable of reasoning our way to morality?
The Naturalistic Fallacy or
the ‘Is-Ought' Gap




Kant argued that what is good to do is what we
ought to do. For example: 'It is good to be kind to
children therefore we ought to be kind to children.’
'What is inherently good and intrinsically right' is
the way in which we ought to behave for the mutual
good of all, irrespective of consequences.
Critics of Kant have accused him of committing the
naturalistic fallacy - of turning an is into an ought.
If we say that something is the case, we are making
a descriptive statement of how things are.
The Naturalistic Fallacy or
the ‘Is-Ought' Gap



A normative or prescriptive statement says that something
ought to be desired.
David Hume (1711-76) observed that there is nothing in a
descriptive statement that allows us to proceed from what
people actually do (a factual statement about the way things
are) to making a rule which states what people ought to do (a
value judgement).
For example, it would be unfair to move from a statement of
fact that women are better parents (if, for example, an
experiment produced that result) to saying that therefore
men ought not to be single parents.
Tasks
4.
Kant argues that it is always wrong
to lie.
Do you agree with him?
Explain your answer fully.
5.
Is Kant’s theory practical in the real
world?
Tasks
6.
7.
Compare and contrast the approach of a
utilitarian, a situation ethicist and a
deontologist to the following ethical dilemmas:
 Abortion
 Euthanasia
 Genetic Engineering
 Fertility Treatment
 The Separation of Siamese Twins
(assuming one will live and one will die)
Is Kant’s principle of universalisability
preferable to the principle of utility?